Case law

Nielander v. Board of County Commissioners

582 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability in federal claims unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … -24- concluding that statement two was a true threat under clearly established federal law) cannot be resolved as a matter of law, the law is not clearly established and qualified

Jeffrey Swiecicki v. Jose Delgado

463 F.3d 489 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 15, 2006

The law of qualified immunity We will “review the denial of summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity de novo because application of this doctrine is a question of law.” McCloud v. … Swiecicki’s First Amendment right to free speech was thus clearly established at the time of Delgado’s actions in question. We therefore reverse the grant of qualified immunity awarded to Delgado on this issue. b.

Herrera v. Santa Fe Public Schools

956 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 28, 2013

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court, faced with the clearly established prong of Wilson’s qualified immunity, recognized that “courts considering qualified immunity for strip searches” have found it “impossible to establish clearly the contours

Peterson v. North Dakota ex rel. North Dakota University System

240 F. Supp. 2d 1055 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Jan 3, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields state officials from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In other words, the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Lawson v. Gregg

140 F. Supp. 3d 873 · District Court, D. Alaska · Oct 20, 2015

could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful, in light of the clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed.” 44 “Qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make … The United ‘States Supreme Court has held that a court should “not ... define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” 53 “Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be

Schiffbauer v. Schmidt

95 F. Supp. 3d 846 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 2015

Furthermore, because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit “rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial,” Mitchell … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before *853 the commencement of discovery.”

Anastasio v. Planning Board of West Orange

197 N.J. Super. 457 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 10, 1984

Since the trial court at the motion to dismiss the complaint had held that the affirmative defense of qualified immunity was available, the next issue to confront the court is the one dealing with qualified immunity. … It then became the task of the Supreme Court to set guidelines for defining the scope of qualified immunity. The guidelines for the scope of qualified immunity were established in the case of Wood v.

Harold Werkheiser v. Pocono Township

780 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 6, 2015

Because we conclude that the contours of the First Amendment right at issue were not clearly established, we hold that Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on their federal claim.1 … Appellants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding Werkheiser’s rights was not clearly established. The District Court rejected this argument as well.

District of Columbia v. Minor

740 A.2d 523 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 1999

In suits for unlawful arrest brought under § 1983, qualified immunity shields police officers from liability if “ ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and … The instruction given to the jury on qualified immunity stated: “Officer Kelsey is shielded from liability for civil damages as long as he did not intentionally, or with reckless disregard, violate clearly established statutory

David Powell v. Jerry L. Gallentine Robert C. Martin Maria Elvira Rodriguez Richard C. Kauzlaric, Western New Mexico University Board of Regents

992 F.2d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 1993

We have previously set out the procedure for analyzing a claim of qualified immunity: First, the defendant must raise the defense of qualified immunity. … official violated the clearly established law.

Demoret v. Zegarelli

451 F.3d 140 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 8, 2006

I Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary duties “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … clearly established law.

Lamonte Jackson-Gibson v. Reginald Beasley

118 F.4th 848 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 2024

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.”

Newberry v. Board of County Commissioners

919 P.2d 141 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1996

Our statutory provision clearly is one in which immunity is the rule and liability is the exception. Vigil v. Ruettgers, 887 P.2d 521 (Wyo.1994); Hurst v. State, 698 P.2d 1130 (Wyo.1985). See Kimbley v. … If a statute employs a term which has a standard meaning, the term is presumably used in its ordinary and usual sense unless another sense is clearly intended. W.S. 8-1- *146 103(a)(i).

Julie Peffer v. Mike Stephens

880 F.3d 256 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 2018

That is because we are convinced that there was no clearly established constitutional violation and therefore qualified immunity applies. … Because there was no constitutional violation, we need not address the second step of the qualified-immunity analysis, whether the law was clearly established.

Meas v. City and County of San Francisco

681 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 9, 2010

A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such that it would be clear … Here, defendants argue that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims because none of their actions violated clearly established law.

Howard v. Wilkinson

305 F. Supp. 3d 1327 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 2, 2018

Qualified immunity protects government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing that the Officer Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 3.

Nelson O. Robles v. Prince George's County, Maryland James Rozar Antonio Debarros, Nelson O. Robles v. Prince George's County, Maryland James Rozar Antonio Debarros

308 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 29, 2002

("Even though the officers' actions deprived Robles of an actual constitutional right, Rozar and DeBarros may still be entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the incident." … Rather, it appears that the panel actually granted qualified immunity either on the wholly illegitimate ground that the officers did not subjectively understand that their conduct violated clearly established law, or on the

Wallace v. Moberly

947 S.W.2d 273 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 17, 1997

B) Qualified Immunity to § 1983 Claims In his second point of error, Wallace argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for summary judgment because he is entitled to qualified immunity to Moberly’s federal law … Wallace is entitled to qualified immunity if he could have reasonably believed his actions to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed. Hunter v.

Nagy v. Mone, et al.

2007 DNH 143 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 28, 2007

If plaintiff does allege the deprivation of a constitutional right, I examine the next two steps in the qualified immunity analysis, asking whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional … Thus, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at step two. C. Step Three: Would a Reasonable Officer Have Understood That His Conduct Violated Clearly Established Constitutional Rights?

de Veloz v. Miami-Dade County

255 F. Supp. 3d 1222 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 8, 2017

Once a qualified immunity defense has been asserted, unless Plaintiffs’ “allegations state a claim of violation1 of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement … Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”